JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellantInsurance Company against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District-Jaipur (for short ’the Tribunal’) in MAC No. 1368/2011 (NCV No. 2842/14) by which the claim petition filed by the claimant respondents under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act of 1988’) was allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the claimant respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi and Anr. Vs. The United India Insurance Company and Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 9393/2019 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the dependents of the deceased would be entitled to get compensation under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 when the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue in para Nos. 5.8 and 5.9 as under:- "5.8 However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance. However, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that there is an amendment to the 2nd Schedule and a fixed amount of Rs.5 lakh has been specified in case of death and therefore the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.5 lakh. The same cannot be accepted. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2006 and even the Judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2009, and the impugned Judgment and Order has been passed by the High Court in 10.05.2018, i.e. much prior to the amendment in the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment to the 2nd Schedule. At the same time, as observed hereinabove, the claimants shall be entitled to Rs.1 lakh as per the terms of the contract of insurance, the driver being in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. 5.9 Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the claimants that in a claim under Section 163A of the Act mere use of the vehicle is enough and despite the compensation claimed by the heirs of the owner of the motorcycle which was involved in the accident resulting in his death, the claim under Section 163-A of the Act would be maintainable is concerned, in view of the decision of this Court in Rajni Devi (supra), the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In Rajni Devi (supra), it has been specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. After considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263 ; Dhanraj (supra); National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700 and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193 , it is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. It is further observed that, for the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), it is specifically held by this Court that the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore, as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh as observed hereinabove." 3. Therefore, as per the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh as observed hereinabove." 3. In view of the above settled proposition of law, this Court finds no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 4. Consequent thereupon, stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.